Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration: The Applicability of the Paris Declaration in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations

This document evaluates the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Paris Declaration of 2005 [PDF], which includes the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD's Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations, recognising the specific aid effectiveness challenges of conflict and transition situations. This document includes an analysis of the aid effectiveness challenges in fragile situations (including the relevance and usefulness of the Paris Declaration and how the Paris Declaration is applied in different contexts) and the constraints and key challenges facing donors. As part of the review
of evidence, four desk-based case studies - covering Afghanistan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Nepal - are included.

As stated in the Executive Summary: "...A concern with 'aid effectiveness' as a basis for international engagement needs to be supplemented by a more fundamental concern with the effectiveness, accountability, responsiveness and legitimacy of the institutions of the state. This means that international engagement must have an agenda of 'state-building' as well as an agenda of increasing aid effectiveness...."

The evidence reviewed reinforces the emphasis of the Fragile States principles on the importance of:

• "A joint understanding among development partners of each specific context, including adequate political economy, conflict and risk analysis;
  
• The state-building agenda (understood as involving not just the capacity of the state but its legitimacy and accountability);
  
• A whole of government approach;
  
• A 'do no harm' approach; and
  
• Harmonised approaches from development partners."

The critical factors between development partners and country partners include: ownership (including building consensus on strategy); alignment (including alignment with government systems); harmonisation (including efforts to build a coherent strategy with joint analysis); and mutual accountability (because a lack of ownership and accountability makes managing for results difficult.)

Lessons and shortcomings identified here include:

1. Needs assessments and planning and prioritisation tools should be simple and selective, and they should include prioritisation and sequencing.
   
2. Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) can provide a forum for policy dialogue and joint decision-making process in which partner countries can exercise increasing ownership and leadership, and partners can align and harmonise financing.
   
3. Harmonised approaches by development partners need to include joint and shared approaches to political economy context, conflict, and risk analysis, in order to anticipate and, where possible, prevent state failure and conflict. (An approach to provide harmonised engagement has been in the form of joint donor offices.)

Afghanistan: Successes in implementing Paris Declaration priorities include development involvement and ownership at a central government level and alignment with Afghan priorities and structures. Challenges include: implementation outside of the capital because of contested authority; funding flow affecting harmonisation of organisations competing for funds; transparency; and communication for transparency. State-building entails capacity building, aiding the spread of legitimacy of the government, and strengthening accountability.

Burundi: The process of consolidating peace in Burundi is helped by:

• Institutionalising the participation of marginalised groups (ethnic minorities, the economically poor, the displaced, women, youth, neglected regions) including the use of target numbers of participation and quorums.
  
• Giving these marginalised groups the means and space to express their priorities, e.g., through the provision of training on advocacy and leadership skills, or through the use of focus groups drawn from marginalised populations.
  
• Addressing accountability and equal participation, particularly with respect to social services, jobs, access to capital, and community development.
  
• Linking with conflict-sensitive processes (e.g. community-based reconciliation programmes, sector-specific and group-specific initiatives focusing on such groups as the displaced and ex-combatants - particularly with conflict resolution, training, and economic initiatives) and identifying synergies and complementarities that can contribute to the consolidation of peace.
  
• Developing indicators and collecting statistics that will permit measurement of the extent to which development is proceeding in an equitable, inclusive fashion - considered from the standpoint of ethnicity, region, and gender.

Issues in Burndi have included balancing capacity building for ownership of development processes with the need to produce immediate results and holding the government and organisations to a high degree of accountability, i.e., making sure the development does not fund divisive political agenda or patronage. When the government has been involved with partners in formulating development frameworks, "high levels of government involvement have provided ownership and the resulting frameworks have increased government power at the 'negotiating table', and facilitating the process of aid allocation."

DRC: The evaluation found that development partner frameworks have not engaged the political processes of state-building and accountability because of reluctance to align with the government, but they have produced a pragmatic coalition, though one not harmonised in approach. This, however, has resulted in a consequent reduction in ownership and accountability and a danger of continuation of a patronage system.

Nepal: The pilot study found a need for development partnership harmonisation in terms of agendas and rationale for intervention and assistance, and that: "In a conflict environment 'do no harm' may lead to a position akin to neutrality for donors, whereas 'state-building' has implications of bias and risks." However, continuous engagement of development partners in the health and education sectors led to improved indicators for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, care must be taken to avoid duplicating social exclusion (a cause of the conflict in this country) in these sectors. Capacity building at the institutional level and accountability to marginalised groups were two of the keys identified for development partners through this evaluation.